Interesting read about upcoming K9 processors

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

I think a lot of us can remember Intel's predictions about IA64 eventually
replacing IA32 by some point in time. You don't need some archival webpage
in order to prove it. Just the fact that so many of us who have been in
this
business for so long can recall these statements is more than enough.

Mass recollections of events is no guarantee of the accuracy of those
recollections. The repeated telling of events can 'shape' those memories,
though they may seem to be vivid and accurate. Human recollection is a
very unreliable determinant of actual events.
http://www.memory-key.com/ResearchRe...versky2000.htm

What *is* reliable is factual evidence, which has yet to be presented.
While the lack of evidence is no proof that Intel did *not* intend to
replace x86 in the near future, it is most certainly a reason to doubt the
accuracy of the recollections of those who most vehemently dislike
Itanium...

And, as I said - I have official Intel roadmaps from 1996 thru 2000. On
paper and in electronic form. You have recollections. Excuse me if I
doubt your powers of recall unless and until some better evidence is
presented. Sorry.

Regards,
Dean


Yousuf Khan

Dean Kent wrote:
So, it would appear that even in 1996 the concept was not to
eliminate x86 entirely, in 1997 it was publicly stated that IA32
would be around for some time after Y2K, and in 1998 it was publicly
stated that IA64 would not be on the desktop for at least another 3.5
years from *today*. This despite the recollections of a few who are
certain that Intel had more nefarious plans early on...

Regards,
Dean

Hey, I dug up an old Register article by Mike McGee from April 1999:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/04..._ia64_roadmap/

quote
Secrets of Intel's IA-64 roadmap revealed
By Mike Magee
Published Wednesday 28th April 1999 11:48 GMT
Updated Reliable sources said yesterday that a future Intel IA-64 chip
called Northwood would hit 3000MHz at its release. At the same time, it
emerged that McKinley is likely to launch using P858 aluminium technology.
The source who requested anonymity, works at Intel's R&D centre in Israel.
He said that all generations of microprocessors following Deschutes are
developed in pairs: Katmai-Tanner, Coppermine-Cascades and
Willamette-Foster. Northwood, like Madison and Deerfield will be X60
compactions of the IA-64 but for the Willamette architecture. Northwood,
further, is missing a Xeon counterpart and that suggests that Merced,
McKinley and Madison are likely to replace IA-32 server chips. Deerfield is
likely to be the first IA-64 chip aimed at the consumer market with a launch
date in the 2003 timeframe. Meanwhile, the source said there is "practically
no way" that Willamette and Foster will use copper technology. According to
another source at Intel Germany, the Merced platform was originally laid out
for .35 micron technology...
/quote

So it looks like at one time Northwood was supposed to be an IA-64 chip, but
it actually turned out to be an IA-32 Pentium 4. Now it also looks like they
were saying that Northwood would have "no Xeon counterparts", so it would
seem that Northwood was meant to be a desktop chip -- which it actually
turned out to be. Of course Northwood did actually end up having Xeon
counterparts (what were they? Gallatin, or something?), but still 32-bit
Xeons.

It's fun digging up archives. It's almost like being a paleontologist. :-)

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

So it looks like at one time Northwood was supposed to be an IA-64 chip,
but
it actually turned out to be an IA-32 Pentium 4. Now it also looks like
they
were saying that Northwood would have "no Xeon counterparts", so it would
seem that Northwood was meant to be a desktop chip -- which it actually
turned out to be. Of course Northwood did actually end up having Xeon
counterparts (what were they? Gallatin, or something?), but still 32-bit
Xeons.

It's fun digging up archives. It's almost like being a paleontologist. :-)

Is it possible that Mike was wrong, or perhaps his source? Isn't the Israel
lab the one that developed Banias? Would someone there have direct
knowledge of IA-64 plans, or would it most likely be rumors? I wonder if
there has been any other time Intel has re-used a codename for two different
processors? So, if the Northwood was being planned as IA64 in mid-1999, but
by early 2001 it was released as a P4, that seems like a very short amount
of time to do such a redesign. I'm no EE, but it seems that if Intel has
such release cycles it would be pretty difficult to just change them on the
fly like this.

Regards,
Dean




Yousuf Khan

"Dean Kent" wrote in message
.. .

Is it possible that Mike was wrong, or perhaps his source?

Check this link to MDR. This is the 2nd half 2000 Intel forecast. That
means it was likely compiled in the first half, or perhaps even late 1999.
It shows Northwood as a P4 part, not IA-64. Can we presume that Mike or
his source were out in left field?

http://www.mdronline.com/publication...2000/toc2.html

Regards,
Dean


Regards,
Dean

Dean Kent wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

I think a lot of us can remember Intel's predictions about IA64
eventually replacing IA32 by some point in time. You don't need some
archival webpage in order to prove it. Just the fact that so many of
us who have been in this business for so long can recall these
statements is more than enough.

Mass recollections of events is no guarantee of the accuracy of those
recollections. The repeated telling of events can 'shape' those
memories, though they may seem to be vivid and accurate. Human
recollection is a very unreliable determinant of actual events.
http://www.memory-key.com/ResearchRe...versky2000.htm

Ah, I see, so we who have been in this business for so long are just
suffering from collective hallucinations?

What *is* reliable is factual evidence, which has yet to be presented.
While the lack of evidence is no proof that Intel did *not* intend to
replace x86 in the near future, it is most certainly a reason to
doubt the accuracy of the recollections of those who most vehemently
dislike Itanium...

And, as I said - I have official Intel roadmaps from 1996 thru 2000.
On paper and in electronic form. You have recollections. Excuse
me if I doubt your powers of recall unless and until some better
evidence is presented. Sorry.

Thus you shall have it. If the only proof you shall accept is documentary
proof (which would include webpages), then we shall do Google searches on
your behalf to find those precious archival webpages.

This article from late 1998, it was thought that the IA-32 line of
processors would end in 2003 with the Foster, and from that point afterwards
IA-64 would take over starting with Deerfield. It's also interesting to note
that back then, Intel thought 64-bit for the masses would take off starting
in 2003. It turned out that they were absolutely right, but it just wasn't
one of their chips, it was the Athlon 64 and Opteron.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ield_to_split/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ter_to_extend/

Now, it's obvious that Intel's plans didn't actually live upto its original
roadmaps. That's not surprising or unexpected. However, it's also not
important, it was their intention that is being discussed here only. It was
obvious that in 1998, Intel was hinting at replacing IA-32 at least by 2003.

Yousuf Khan

"Dean Kent" wrote in message
. ..
"Dean Kent" wrote in message
.. .

Is it possible that Mike was wrong, or perhaps his source?

Check this link to MDR. This is the 2nd half 2000 Intel forecast. That
means it was likely compiled in the first half, or perhaps even late 1999.
It shows Northwood as a P4 part, not IA-64. Can we presume that Mike or
his source were out in left field?

http://www.mdronline.com/publication...2000/toc2.html


Just found this post on comp.sys.intel back in Jan 1996. It says that Intel
delayed Merced until late 1998, and that there would be a performance
discrepancy when running x86 code.

http://www.google.com/groups?q=IA-64...wcp.com&rnum=2

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Intel said anything about
replacing x86 with IA-64 in the 1996 and beyond timeframe (might have said
something in 1994/95 about it - but searching Google Groups turns up nothing
from anyone about this - so I am doubting that anyone actually heard such a
thing or it probably would have been posted as a question, at least).
Official information indicates that they knew there would be performance
issues, and that x86 would not be easily replaced.

David Wang posted in Dec 1996, that MDR claimed IA-64 would likely be
'phased in' over a long period of time (he estimates 5 to 10 years), but
also states that he believed Intel would be developing x86 processors "well
into the 21st century".

http://www.google.com/groups?q=IA-64...umd.edu&rnum=1

Searching Google Groups from 1981 thru 1997, I see nobody posting anything
about Intel claiming IA-64 would replace x86 in any official or unofficial
statement. I *do* see several people trying to make the argument that it
would, which picked up steam in 1997 (only a couple of posts in 1996). If
so many people saw charts and heard Intel statements, how come nobody posted
a single comment or question about it anywhere on Usenet?

I really am trying to find the evidence. It just seems so damned hard to
find that I must question whether it ever existed...

Regards,
Dean

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...

Thus you shall have it. If the only proof you shall accept is documentary
proof (which would include webpages), then we shall do Google searches on
your behalf to find those precious archival webpages.

This article from late 1998, it was thought that the IA-32 line of
processors would end in 2003 with the Foster,

Foster, Cascades and Tanner are Xeon parts, not desktop x86. You are either
being intentionally disingenuous, or your shades are letting through only
what will support your argument. The article specifically states:

"Graylish meanwhile confirms that Intel doesn't want people to get too
excited about IA-64 too soon. As reported here earlier, Intel's plans for
the continuation of IA-32 make it clear that it anticipates this being the
volume platform for some time"

and from that point afterwards
IA-64 would take over starting with Deerfield. It's also interesting to
note
that back then, Intel thought 64-bit for the masses would take off
starting
in 2003. It turned out that they were absolutely right, but it just wasn't
one of their chips, it was the Athlon 64 and Opteron.

Um. Exactly which 'masses' are you referring to? Opteron has 6-7% of the
market. A64 has even less.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ield_to_split/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1998/10...ter_to_extend/

Now, it's obvious that Intel's plans didn't actually live upto its
original
roadmaps. That's not surprising or unexpected. However, it's also not
important, it was their intention that is being discussed here only. It
was
obvious that in 1998, Intel was hinting at replacing IA-32 at least by
2003.

Read it again. It did not say that. The entire article is discussing
server chips, and specifically states that IA-32 chips would be volume for a
long time after 2003...

Regards,
Dean


Yousuf Khan

"Dean Kent" writes:

Just found this post on comp.sys.intel back in Jan 1996. It says that Intel
delayed Merced until late 1998, and that there would be a performance
discrepancy when running x86 code.

Well, the fact that they spent an effort on x86 compatibility seems to
make it pretty clear that they wanted it to target at least some of
the same market. At least, it's hardly something HP would insist on
in a HPPA replacement.

I am finding it harder and harder to believe that Intel said anything about
replacing x86 with IA-64 in the 1996 and beyond timeframe (might have said

IA-64 was supposed to be the Next Thing, much faster and better than
x86, and backwards compatible. Even if Intel didn't explicitly
sentence x86 to death, the market perception was that it was going to
happen.

Analogously, I think one would be hard pressed to find an AMD
statement giving a timeframe for ending x86 in favor of x86-64, but I
think it's fair to say that this is the plan and likely outcome.

Given the ('fin de siecle'? :-) perception that IA64 would outperform
x86, have a 64bit address space, and perhaps most importantly: be
proprietary to Intel; why wouldn't Intel do all in their power to
terminate x86 as the CPU of choice? (Including newspeak about IA64
being "open", as opposed to "closed" architectures like SPARC, but I
digress.)

IMHO, they kept x86 available 'until IA64 could take over', and
only relatively recently (with the development of their own x86-64
line) changed to 'indefinitely'. Good for them they didn't terminate
x86 development early on (unlike some competing RISC chips).

-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants

Dean Kent wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...

Thus you shall have it. If the only proof you shall accept is
documentary proof (which would include webpages), then we shall do
Google searches on your behalf to find those precious archival
webpages.

This article from late 1998, it was thought that the IA-32 line of
processors would end in 2003 with the Foster,

Foster, Cascades and Tanner are Xeon parts, not desktop x86. You are
either being intentionally disingenuous, or your shades are letting
through only what will support your argument. The article
specifically states:

No one said anything about desktop or server x86, we were just talking about
x86 in general.

Actually, neither of these articles made any mention about these being Xeon
parts. Yes, Foster eventually did turn out to be a P4 Xeon, but at that time
it wasn't known what market it was aimed at. It was just a name on a
roadmap.

"Graylish meanwhile confirms that Intel doesn't want people to get too
excited about IA-64 too soon. As reported here earlier, Intel's plans
for the continuation of IA-32 make it clear that it anticipates this
being the volume platform for some time"

However, the 32-bit Intel roadmaps ended at Foster at that time, while at
the same time a lot of names appeared on the IA-64 roadmap well after
Foster. Why so little visibility on IA-32 roadmap when IA-64 was so visible?

and from that point afterwards
IA-64 would take over starting with Deerfield. It's also interesting
to note that back then, Intel thought 64-bit for the masses would
take off starting in 2003. It turned out that they were absolutely
right, but it just wasn't one of their chips, it was the Athlon 64
and Opteron.

Um. Exactly which 'masses' are you referring to? Opteron has 6-7%
of the market. A64 has even less.

What would you call them, boutique chips? Athlon 64 with a small marketshare
in the desktop space could still mean millions of chips in a year. And of
course, Opteron at 6-7% would still mean that it outsells all non-x86 server
chips. And of course none of this is static, as both of those processors
increasing their marketshare not decreasing.

Yousuf Khan

In article , Ketil Malde wrote:

Well, the fact that they spent an effort on x86 compatibility seems to
make it pretty clear that they wanted it to target at least some of
the same market.

If you look at what the software people actually did, having the
ability to execute 32-bit code was very useful in the early life of
the chip. For example, the initial Intel compiler under Linux was a
32-bit app, and some important Winblows apps weren't (aren't?) 64-bit
clean. When you produce a chip and run Linux or Winblows on it, those
damn customers expect a lot of wild stuff to actually work on it,
no matter which market you think you're attacking.

This would justify some of that compatibility work, although it could
have been a pure software scheme.

Followups reduced.

-- greg